X-Message-Number: 1554
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Charles Platt and Saul Kent
Date: Thu,  7 Jan 93 20:15:29 PST

I really shouldn't let him provoke me into replying, but in message 
#1543 Charles Platt manages to miss my points about Saul while 
(unconsciously?) slighting the new administration of Alcor. 
 
>Keith Henson says that "we all have to live with the 
>consequences" of Saul Kent's book, which compiled opinions 
>about Carlos Mondragon's presidency.  However, "living with 
>the consequences" is precisely what Keith seems unwilling to 
>do. Instead, he is exacerbating residual discontent by 
>suggesting that Saul threatens Alcor merely by being actively 
>involved in cryonics. 

*Far* from it.  The threat to Alcor depends on the combination of 1) 
Saul's legal problems with the FDA and the US Attorney's office which 
has filed 28 felony counts against him, 2) his proposal in his book to 
replacing Carlos Mondragon with Steve Bridge, and 3) the fact that 
this took place, either demonstrating or at least making it *look* 
like Saul has a lot of power over Alcor.  The only ingredient we lack 
for a full scale disaster is some reason for the forces of the law to 
start poking into Alcor, and they *might* decide to do so simply 
because of the apparent influence Saul has over Alcor.  You can make a 
case if you wish that I am just being paranoid.  Or you can go read 
the historical record (the Kunzman testimony) and see for yourself how 
much Saul's troubles contributed to Alcor's last time.  If you lack a 
copy, Charles, I can send you one. 
 
>This reminds me of the kind of mudslinging campaign indulged 
>in by George Bush, with the same apparent intention: to 
>undermine confidence in one's opponent by whipping up 
>people's anxieties based on an oversimplified handful of 
>facts. If Keith has a higher motive than this, I would very 
>much like to know what it is.

Yeah, I have a "higher motive."  I spent damn near a year of my life 
helping Carlos (and the rest of the crew) get Alcor out of the last 
mess.  I don't want another episode like Dora Kent to happen (I have 
other things to do with my life), so I want people in Alcor to be 
*very* cautious in what they do to help Saul.  Though I have never 
been arrested (nor was I into heavy duty lawbreaking), for a while I 
was well accounted with several people on the far side of the law.  
The experience of watching them skate from one bust to the next seems 
to have made me far more sensitive to issues of marginal behavior 
involving the law then those who have not had such experiences.  
Please note that it was a desire to do something for Saul which led to 
the entire Dora Kent affair.  The tendency to help Saul (in what is, 
after all, a just cause) is hard to resist. 

>A few weeks ago, Keith asked various people (myself included) 
>to refrain from dealing with political topics on the net. 
>Ironically, Keith himself is now the ONLY person initiating 
>these topics. Keith, is it not possible for you to take your 
>own good advice? 

I am not sure where political topics leave off and non-political 
concerns begin.  From the standpoint of the change of administration, 
there is no political controversy at this time.  Does the fact that 
Saul was deeply into Alcor politics make any topic involving him off 
limits in your mind? 

Re being the ONLY person, I do not recall making any recent postings 
which were not in response to someone else's posting.  If I remember 
the order correctly, Scott posted his concern that I might be the next 
target of Saul, Courtney asked Scott why he thought so, Scott answered 
by posting Saul's call for my resignation, and I finally *at Steve's 
suggestion* posted the letter which had prompted Saul's call--along 
with some public domain material which demonstrated *why* I have been 
so concerned about his problems spilling over onto Alcor. 

But, that aside, are you suggesting that as a board member I should 
*not* express my concern about a situation where Alcor may be placed 
at risk?  When it has happened before?  And when I seem to be the only 
one willing to dig out the details of what happened? 
 
>Others (such as Dave Pizer), who backed Carlos and lost, have 
>had the decency to express their support for the new 
>administration and stop trying to stir up resentment. Keith, 
>is it not possible to follow their fine example? 

Charles, before you accuse me again, I suggest you call Steve Bridge 
and just ask him if I have been supporting "the new administration." 
And if Steve wants more support in specific areas, such as another 
fund rasing letter, or technical help, all he has to do is ask. 

But what really hacks me off about your posting is that you seem to be 
equating support for the new administration with me keeping my mouth 
shut about what I see as dangers to Alcor stemming from Saul Kent's 
problems with the law.  If you are claiming that Saul Kent = the new 
administration, you are doing Alcor, Saul Kent, and Steve Bridge a 
considerable disservice.  Either clarification or apology would seem 
to be in order. 


Saul Kent (msg 1539) writes:

>How do you rate the following things with regard to their threat to
>Alcor:  1.  My battles with the FDA   2.  My ideas;   3.  My influence
>with Alcor Board members   4.  My influence with other Alcor members?

My guess at rank order would be 1, 3, 4, 2 for the short run, though, 
as I explained to Charles above, it is the combination which causes me 
concern.  Another ranking might emerge from historical studies by 
Charles Platt's "demented cryo-historian" who I always have in mind as 
I write these notes.  In the long run, your ideas of splitting up Alcor 
or politicizing the board might be the greater threat.

Keith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1554